Archive | April, 2018

Objections to the Draft Decision Badger Flats

USDA Forest Service
Region 2 Rocky Mountain Region
Attn.: Objection Reviewing Officer
1617 Cole Boulevard, Building 17
Lakewood, CO 80401

RE: Objections to the DRAFT DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, BADGER FLATS MANAGEMENT PROJECT, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, PIKE NATIONAL FOREST, SOUTH PARK RANGER DISTRICT, PARK COUNTY, COLORADO March 2018

Dear Objection Reviewing Officer:

The following objections are submitted in regards to Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact, Badger Flats Management Project, U.S. Forest Service, Pike National Forest, South Park Ranger District on behalf of the Trails Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) and the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”). The TPA is a volunteer organization created to be a viable partner to public lands managers, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of trail riding. The TPA acts as an advocate for the sport and takes the necessary action to insure that the USFS and BLM allocate a fair and equitable percentage of public lands access to diverse trail riding opportunities. COHVCO is a grassroots advocacy organization representing approximately 150,000 registered off-highway vehicle (“OHV”) users in Colorado seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado. COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations. TPA and COHVCO are referred to collectively in this correspondence as “The Organizations.” The Organizations previously submitted Objections to the Badger Flats Management Project, Environmental Assessment, South Park Ranger District, Pike & San Isabel National Forest, October 2016, in a letter dated November, 2016 citing similar objections to those listed below. The Organizations’ objections to the Proposed Decision and Action prepared for the Badger Flats Management Project are listed below:

  1. The Proposed Decision and Action intends to close NFSR 44 (along with NFSRs 44.2C, 44.2B and NFSR 280) on the west side of La Salle Pass. The Organizations contend that only NFSRs 44.2C, 44.2B and 280 need consideration of curtailment of access. That NFSR 44 should remain open to public access, or if absolutely necessary the alignment of NFSR 44 could be adjusted, re-routed or offset. The Organizations contend that the existing centerline of NFSR is ½ mile or more from the terrain suitable for cliff-nesting raptors. NFSR 44 is one of the primary and often the preferred route for motorized travel over La-Salle Pass. That NFSR 44 and NFSR 44.2A together provide a loop opportunity, and an opportunity to disperse recreational uses on the west side of La Salle Pass. Closure of NFSR 44 (a primary route to La Salle Pass) to public access will concentrate all use onto 44.2A completely eliminating the unique experiences to travel through the center and northern portions of the open meadow landscape. Additionally, NFSR 44.2A is the more difficult route and includes rock obstacles that some users may not desire to traverse.
  2. The Proposed Decision and Action fails to include any consideration for an open riding area specifically for motorized trials bike riding. Historically the Rocky Mountain Trials Association (RMTA) has worked with the South Park Ranger District to obtain land use permits for observed trials riding in the Thorpe Gulch area. A request was specifically made in our previous comments to consider a designated open riding area for the purpose of motorized trials riding. The Proposed Decision and Action fails to include any consideration of an open trails riding area in the vicinity of Thorpe Gulch or anywhere else with the Badger Flats Management Project Area. The Organizations remedy for this objection would be that the South Park Ranger District confers with the RMTA and that the Proposed Decision and Action be revised to include a suitable designated area specifically for open motorized trials riding (i.e., without a special use or other permit and open for use year round). The TPA supports RMTA’s objection comments submitted under a separate document and the club’s proposals for providing open trials riding areas.
  3. The Proposed Decision and Action proposes to decommission NFSR 214.B, a connecting segment that our previously submitted comments specifically requested be kept open to public use. The Environmental Assessment for this project provides no reasonable justification for the decommissioning of NFSR 214.B. NFSR 214.B provides a direct connection between two proposed designated dispersed camping areas and failure to keep access open on NFSR 214.B results in a dead- end, no direct connection between the two proposed designated dispersed camping areas and completely eliminates a popular looped recreational opportunity. Remedy of this objection can be accomplished by eliminating the decommissioning of NFSR 214.B and keep NFSR 214.B open to public use.
  4. The Proposed Decision and Action does not go far enough in converting “roads/NFSR” to “trails open to all vehicles/NFST” (aka “Full-size Trails). The primary use of roads in the Badger Flats area is indeed for “recreation”. Trails are well suited to recreational uses and are often preferred for recreational purposes. The level of maintenance can be reduced for trails vs. roads, conversion of roads to trails can make the route eligible for State OHV grant funding, travel speeds on trails can be reduced and therefore improve the safety of the route, and finally volunteers can be employed to help maintain routes designated as trails. The Proposed Decision and Action needs to designate and convert the majority of roads in the Badger Flats area as “trails open to all vehicles” and remove the routes from the formal “roads inventory”.
  5. The Organizations would welcome a discussion of these objections at your convenience. Our point of contact for this project will be William Alspach, P.E. at 675 Pembrook Dr., Woodland Park, CO, cell 719-660-1259, e-mail: williamalspach@gmail.com.

Sincerely,

 

D.E. Riggle,
Director of Operations
Trail Preservation Alliance

Scott Jones, Esq.
COHVCO

cc Josh Voorhis, District Ranger, South Park District Ranger

Continue Reading

NOHVCC Newsletter: Interior Secretary Reaffirms Commitment to Recreation!

Published with permission from the NOHVCC Newsletter http://www.nohvcc.org

Please see the below press release from the Office of the Secretary of The Interior announcing Secretary Zinke’s efforts to prioritize recreation on DOI lands.

Zinke Signs Secretarial Orders to Increase Recreational Opportunities on Public Lands and Waters

Establishes Position of Senior National Advisor for Recreation

WASHINGTON – U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke today signed two secretarial orders continuing his efforts to prioritize the Department of Interior’s recreation mission and increase access to public lands.

Secretarial Order 3366 directs certain Interior bureaus to create and deliver plans to the Department within 90 days that focus on developing or expanding recreational opportunities on public lands and waterways. This order also directs bureau heads to designate one full-time employee charged to oversee recreational opportunities.

“From my first day on the job, I have made it abundantly clear that we are going to refocus on Interior’s long-standing but recently forgotten recreation mission,” said Secretary Zinke. “We are incredibly fortunate, as Americans, to have amazing public lands and waters to carry out our tradition of outdoor recreation but the Department must continue to create opportunities to increase access for these pursuits.”

“We are delighted by the Secretary’s actions to put in place what he has pledged: a system that will elevate the priority of outdoor recreation on public lands and waters managed by the Department of Interior,” said Thom Dammrich, the President of the National Marine Manufacturers Association. “The Secretary’s action recognizes the importance of outdoor recreation for our economy, particularly rural economies, and for the physical and mental health of all Americans. His actions today will help grow outdoor recreation and ensure that fun in the outdoors remains central to the American lifestyle. The Outdoor Recreation Roundtable pledges our support to the Secretary in his efforts to elevate the Department’s commitment to outdoor recreation.”

“Outdoor recreation is an economic engine that produces 2% of the U.S. GDP and is growing at a faster rate than the U.S. economy as a whole,” said Frank Hugelmeyer, the President of the RV Industry Association. “With the right public policies, outdoor recreation will continue to be an American economic engine for years to come. Which is why the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable and its member associations applaud today’s announcements by Secretary Zinke as a common sense plan to elevate the importance of outdoor recreation on public lands and waters throughout the Department of the Interior. This is an important step towards improving the visitor experience on public lands and waters across the country.”

“The recreation industry looks forward to cooperating with the department to offer visitors to parks, refuges and other special places great experiences,” said Derrick Crandall, President of the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable. “The result of better and modernized visitor infrastructure which will contribute to a renaissance of rural communities and a renewed commitment by all Americans to the strong conservation ethic our nation has shared with the world. We thank Secretary Zinke for putting a new emphasis on welcoming enjoyment of our public lands and waters and embracing new skills and new ideas to make visits compatible with protecting our natural and historic resources.”

The bureaus are also asked to provide recommendations for improving and streamlining relevant permitting requirements for guides and outfitters and facilitated outdoor recreation providers and to improve contracting processes for recreation-specific concessioners.
“Whether your favorite activity is kayaking on a river, riding an ATV on sand dunes, jogging on a trail or hunting on a refuge—recreating on public lands and waters is good for the mind, body and soul,” said Secretary Zinke. “And it is also incredibly vital to local economies who rely on recreation spending to help create jobs.”

Secretarial Order 3365 establishes the position of Senior National Advisor to the Secretary for Recreation to ensure deliberate and active coordination of recreational policy in the U.S. Department of the Interior. The position will be filled by Rick May, who currently serves as a Senior Advisor to the Secretary.

May, who joined Interior in November 2017, is a retired U.S. Navy SEAL Captain and decorated veteran who served in the Iraq War. Since his departure from active duty in 2010, he has worked with wounded Veterans in various types of recreational activities, helping them to reintegrate back into mainstream America. May is a graduate of Sonoma State University with a Bachelor of Arts in Biology and he also holds a Master of Arts in Human Resource Management.

“Rick is the absolute best person for this job,” said Secretary Zinke. “The work he has done in helping disabled veterans connect with the outdoors through recreation opportunities speaks for itself. As a former SEAL, he has the leadership needed to help the Department chart its course in making recreation a priority again.”

“First, I’m truly honored and grateful for the confidence that Secretary Zinke has placed in me to hold this position,” said Rick May. “The power of recreation can not be overstated, and its ties to overall health and well-being are undeniable. It is my mission to get more Americans out to enjoy our great public lands, and I look forward to increasing access and opportunity for each and every one of them.”

The Secretarial Orders come on the heels of Secretary Zinke selecting members of the newly created “Made In America” Outdoor Recreation Advisory Committee. A primary charge to the committee is to advise the Secretary on public-private partnerships across all public lands, with the goal of expanding access to and improving the infrastructure on public lands and waters.

Continue Reading

TPA leads Breakout Session at Upcoming Partners in the Outdoors Conference

Colorado Parks and Wildlife is once again hosting the Partners in the Outdoors Conference in Breckenridge 9-11 May, 2018 at the Beaver Run Resort (http://cpw.state.co.us/partners2018).  The Partners in the Outdoors Conference brings together organizations, agencies, schools, businesses and communities engaged in the future of Colorado’s conservation and outdoor recreational opportunities.   The TPA attended the conference last year and was one of the only representatives advocating for multiple-use and motorized recreation at the conference.  This year the TPA decided to increase its participation and support of motorized recreation by leading one of the conference’s “break out” sessions.  The session is titled “Management of Multiple-use Recreation on Public Lands” (http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/2018-Partners-Conference-Session-Schedule.aspx ).  The Director of Colorado’s Office of Outdoor Recreation Industry, Luis Benitez has agreed to moderate the TPA sponsored session that will include panelists from the USFS, BLM, COHVCO, TPA and non-motorized use.  The public is invited to register and attend the conference, so join us at this year’s conference and help be an advocate for motorized and multiple use recreation.

Continue Reading

Gila NF Planning

Gila National Forest
Att: Plan Revision
3005 E. Camino del Bosque
Silver City, NM 88061

Re: Gila NF Planning

Dear Sirs:

Please accept this correspondence as the comments of the Trail Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) with regard to the Gila National Forests Resource Management Plan revision (“the Proposal”). Prior to addressing the specific concerns on the Proposal, THE ORGANIZATIONS believe a brief summary of the Organization is necessary. The Trail Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) is a 100 percent volunteer organization whose intention is to be a viable partner, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of trail riding. TPA acts as an advocate of the sport and takes the necessary action to ensure that the USFS and BLM allocate to trail riding a fair and equitable percentage of access to public lands. TPA is commenting on the Proposal as many of our members have a long history of enjoying the multiple use recreational opportunities on the Gila NF in addition to their property ownership in areas adjacent to the Gila NF. The Off-Road Business Association(“ORBA”) is a national not-for- profit trade association of motorized off-road related businesses formed to promote and preserve off-road recreation in an environmentally responsible manner and appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on this issue. One Voice is a non-profit national association committed to promoting the rights of motorized enthusiasts and improving advocacy in keeping public and private lands open for responsible recreation through strong leadership, advocacy, and collaboration. One Voice is a partner of ORBA and provides a unified voice for grassroots motorized recreation organizations through a national platform that represents the diverse off-highway vehicle (OHV) community. Collectively in these comments TPA, ORBA and One Voice will be referred to as the Organizations.

The Organizations comments will be focused on two issues: 1. Generally restrictive standards that are being placed on the transportation network in the new RMP that could conflict with projects in the future; and 2. The direct conflict of proposed management standards around the CDT and other National Trails System designated routes with relevant federal law. While the three national recreation trails that are currently designated on the Gila do not allow for motorized usage, the Organizations submit that national recreation trails could be designated on the Gila in the future for the benefit of other users, as this is specifically allowed under the NTSA, the forest plan should not standard in contradiction of such a designation and in conflict with the clear intent of Congress on this issue. The Organizations submit these are issues that must be resolved prior to release of the final version of the RMP in order to create a high-quality planning document that will remain relevant over the life of the Proposal and in compliance with relevant federal laws.

The Organizations are very concerned that as exclusionary corridors around the CDT and other National Trail System Act routes have moved forward in resource planning, often these corridors immediately become non-motorized corridors without addressing existing usages of these corridor areas as exemplified by the multiple forests in California moving forward with winter travel planning and the adoption of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan in Southern California by the BLM. While corridors are immediately to be applied in the preferred alternative, at no point is there any analysis of possible impacts to existing usages is even mentioned despite numerous requirements in federal law requiring a specific review of these types of impacts.

1.  Flexibility must be provided for National Recreation Trail designations in the future.

As previously mentioned, The Organizations are very concerned that the Proposal provides for management that conflicts with federal laws, mainly that the Proposal prohibits actions that are specifically allowed in federal law. The Proposal provides as follows:

“1) National Recreation Trails provide a variety of opportunities for non-motorized recreation as well as a diversity of experiences with different levels of solitude, remoteness, and development.”1

The Organizations can find no basis for the restriction of a national recreation trail to only non- motorized purposes and would note that while national scenic trails are alleged to be non- motorized, there are many exceptions to such a standard and 20% of the CDT is currently located on public roads. The scope of use on all national trails is clearly provided in the National Trails System act as follows:

“(j) Types of trail use allowed
Potential trail uses allowed on designated components of the national trails system may include, but are not limited to, the following: bicycling, cross-country skiing, day hiking, equestrian activities, jogging or similar fitness activities, trail biking, overnight and long-distance backpacking, snowmobiling, and surface water and underwater activities. Vehicles which may be permitted on certain trails may include, but need not be limited to, motorcycles, bicycles, four-wheel drive or all-terrain off-road vehicles. In addition, trail access for handicapped individuals may be provided. The provisions of this subsection shall not supersede any other provisions of this chapter or other Federal laws, or any State or local laws.” 2

This simply must be resolved. This management flexibility regarding the road and trail network will also be necessary to address management challenges that are facing the forest, such as declining forest health. Both the US Forest Service and New Mexico State Forest Service recently jointly identified:

“These issues emphasize the continued need for managers to develop and conduct silvicultural treatments to reduce tree density on much of the state’s forests and woodlands. Insect infestations and forest disease complexes (many interacting factors) are nearly impossible to suppress or control once in place; therefore, prevention is the proper forest health strategy. Prevention is achieved by restoring the capacity of a forest ecosystem to resist disturbance, recover quickly, and retain vital structure and function. This is called forest resiliency. Without resilient forests, damage will continue until the responsible agent(s) run out of hosts.” 3

The Organizations is aware that often the lack of basic access to public lands due to management restrictions is a major management challenge when addressing large scale issues, such as poor forest health or drought. Providing a balanced management goal and objective for the Forest would allow for future managers to address challenges from population growth and meaningfully address challenges to the Forest that simply might not even be thought of at this time. Why is The Organizations concerned? Too often recreational access to public lands is lost when maintenance cannot be performed in a cost-effective manner. Adding additional management standards that will at a minimum need an additional round of NEPA planning to address future management challenges simply makes no sense.

2a. CDT corridors conflict with federal law.

The Organizations must express serious concern regarding the direct conflict between federal law and management standards and guidelines proposed for both the direct foot print and areas surrounding the Continental Divide Scenic Trail. While there are numerous new management standards provided for in the Proposal, there is absolutely no analysis of possible impacts to existing usages from these management changes or the fact that many of the existing usages are protected under federal law. The Proposal starts with the implementation of a .5-mile corridor around the entire CDT as follows:

“Viewsheds from the CDT have high scenic values. The foreground of the trail (up to 0.5 mile on either side) is naturally-appearing. The potential to view wildlife is high, and evidence of ecological processes such as fire, insects, and diseases exist.”4

Under the Proposal, the following desired conditions would guide the CDT:

“The CDT is a well-defined trail that provides for high-quality, primitive hiking and horseback riding opportunities, and other compatible non-motorized trail activities, in a highly scenic setting along the Continental Divide.”5

As discussed in subsequent portions of these comments, the CDT plan currently recognized that 20% of the CDT is currently located on motorized roads. While the CDT Plan only addresses levels of road occupancy, The Organizations is aware of extensive portions of the CDT that are currently located on motorized trails currently provided for in the travel management process and are again specifically protected under federal law. In addition to the desired conditions, the Proposal provides for the following management standard as follows:

“Motorized events and motorized special use permits shall not be permitted or authorized on the CDNST.”6

The Proposal continues with Guidelines that provide as follows:

“4) In order to promote a non-motorized setting, the CDT should not be permanently re-located onto routes open to motor vehicle use.

8) In order to promote a naturally appearing, non-motorized setting, constructing temporary or permanent roads or motorized trails across or adjacent to the trail should be avoided unless needed for resource protection, private lands access, or to protect public health and safety.” 7

Again, no basis for the need for these types of standards is provided and the Proposal provides no analysis of possible impacts that might result from the new management standards The Organizations are concerned that according to the CDT management plan 20% of the CDT is currently located on motorized roads, and a higher level of the CDT is located on motorized trails and even more trails cross the CDT but are never collocated on the trail footprint but would be directly impacted by exclusionary corridor type management. Given the direct conflict with both federal law and general planning goals and objectives for the Gila NF and the complete failure to analyze possible impacts from these management decisions as required by NEPA, The Organizations must question why this type of management standard would be explored.

2b. Continental Divide Trail management and corridor usage must be governed by multiple use principals.

The Organizations are aware of extensive discussions and pressure from certain interest groups surrounding the management of National Scenic Trails and National Historic Trails on numerous other forests, as exemplified by discussions around the Pacific Crest Trail as it travels through the Lassen, Tahoe, Stanislaus and Plumas National Forests in California and similar standards are now proposed on the Rio Grande and GMUG in Colorado. While these discussions are often passionate and filled with an artificial urgency to save the trail from some unknown threat, this position simply lacks any basis as it conflicts with the direct language of the National Trails System Act, the intent of Congress in passing the NTSA, the specific language of the Trail related NEPA plans and numerous other Executive Orders regarding recreation and cost benefits analysis. The Organizations is concerned that as the concept of a corridor moved forward on the Gila NF, multiple use concepts and existing routes were immediately excluded under the new Forest Plans.

There are numerous standards that are proposed in the Gila NF RMP that could result in exclusionary corridors and restricted access being developed in subsequent site-specific planning around the CDT or simply expanded into the preferred alternative of the RMP. Often pressure and efforts of groups asserted that national trails system routes must be non-motorized under the National Trails Act are based on incomplete or inaccurate reviews of the National Trails System Act. These inaccurate summaries can be easily achieved due to the poor drafting of the NTSA and the following provisions are included in the hope of bringing balance to these discussions. Unfortunately, these incomplete and conflicting summaries have now been included in USFS Guidance on NTSA designated routes. The Organizations must briefly address the management history of the Continental Divide Scenic Trail and the specific statutory provisions addressing both the CDT and the usage of public lands in areas adjacent to the CDT. Prior to addressing the clarity of the current NTSA, a review of the intent of Congress and competing interests at the time of passage of the NTSA is relevant. Corridors excluding usages violates the NTSA directly, minimizes values, fails from a cost/benefit perspective and economic contribution analysis and will lead to unprecedented conflicts between users that simply does not exist at this time.

The management of NTSA corridors and routes has a long and sometime conflicting management history when only summaries of legislative language is reviewed but significant clarity in Congressional intent for management of routes and corridors is provided with the review of Congressional reports provided around passage of the NTSA. Additionally, every time Congress has spoken regarding these alleged conflicts the NTSA has been amended to include stronger language in favor of multiple use and opposing corridors. Extensive background regarding multiple uses of corridors and trails designated under the NTSA was originally addressed in House Report 1631 (“HRep 1631”) issued in conjunction with the passage of the NTSA in 1968. A complete copy of this report is submitted with these comments for your convenience. While there are numerous Congressional reports referenced in the 2016 USFS CDT guidance, many of which have not been provided to the Congressional offices for release to the public, HRep 1631 is simply never mentioned despite it being a foundational document in the discussion. Such conflicts should be problematic for managers seeking to implement recommendations of USFS Guidance on the NTSA as Congress has repeatedly had the opportunity to require exclusionary corridors around NTSA routes but has consistently moved towards more clarity in addressing multiple usage of these areas.

HRep 1631 provides detailed guidance regarding the intent of the Legislation, and options that Congress declined to implement in the Legislation when it was passed. It is deeply troubling to THE ORGANIZATIONS that USFS guidance relies on numerous legislative documents that were related to amendments no longer even in the NTSA and many of which are unavailable to the public,8 but this highly relevant legislative document is never addressed in the USFS Guidance. Further drawing the USFS Guidance on this issue into question is the fact that while guidance asserts that unfiled Congressional reports that have been superseded remain controlling, some of the most important land management legislation passed last century is overlooked as well. While the NTSA was passed in 1968, the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976 is simply never addressed in USFS guidance. The Organizations simply have no idea how FLPMA could not directly relate to the management of any corridor around the CDT.

HRep 1631 provides a clear statement of the intent of Congress regarding multiple usages with passage of NTSA in 1968, which is as follows:

“The aim of recreation trails is to satisfy a variety of recreation interests primarily at locations readily accessible to the population centers of the Nation.”9

The Organizations note that satisfaction of a variety of recreation interests on public lands simply is not achieved with the implementation of any width corridor around a usage or trail even before FLPMA was adopted into federal law. Rather than providing satisfaction for all uses, implementation of mandatory corridors will result in unprecedented conflict between users. This simply must be avoided.

While HRep 1631 is not addressed in 2016 USFS CDT guidance, the direct conflict of the agency guidance and this report and FLPMA simply cannot be overlooked. Much of the information and analysis provided in HRep 1631 is highly relevant to the authority of USFS guidance assertions that ½ mile corridors is mandatory or even recommended. HRep 1631 clearly and unequivocally states Congress declined to apply mandatory management corridors of any width in the Legislation. HRep 1631 states:

“Finally, where a narrow corridor can provide the necessary continuity without seriously jeopardizing the overall character of the trail, the Secretary should give the economics of the situation due consideration, along with the aesthetic values, in order to reduce the acquisition costs involved.”10

Congress also clearly identified that exclusionary corridors would significantly impair the ability of the agencies to implement the goals and objectives of the NTSA as follows:

“By prohibiting the Secretary from denying them the right to use motorized vehicles across lands which they agree to allow to be used for trail purposes, it is hoped that many privately owned, primitive roadways can be converted to trail use for the benefit of the general public.”11

HRep 1631 clearly addresses the intent of Congress, and the internal Congressional discussions regarding implementation of the NTSA provisions for the benefit of all recreational activities as follows:

“However, they both attempted to deal with the problems arising from other needs along the trails. Rather than limiting such use of the scenic trails to “reasonable crossings”, as provided by the Senate language, the conference committee adopted the House amendment which authorizes the appropriate Secretaries to promulgate reasonable regulations to govern the use of motorized vehicles on or across the national scenic trails under specified conditions.”12

Rather than conveying the clear intent of Congress to avoid corridors as a part of management of an NTSA route, on page one of the 2016 CDT guidance clearly states that such a corridor is the preferred management tool, stating as follows:

“The CDT corridor/MA should be wide enough to encompass the resources, qualities, values, associated settings and primary uses of the Trail. The 0.5-mile foreground viewed from either side of the CDT must be a primary consideration in delineating the CDT corridor/MA boundary (FSM 2353.44b (7)).”13

The Organizations submit that the intent of Congress was clear when the NTSA was passed in 1968, and the clarity of managing the trail footprint and any areas around a trail was clearly impacted by FLPMA, which is the foundation of the concept of Resource Management Plans and area specific goals and objectives. The primacy of FLPMA requirements over NTSA provisions was confirmed again by Congress in 1983, when the NTSA was completely reconstructed by Congress with the passage of PL 98-11. This revision removed any concept of the corridor from the NTSA and clearly identified that multiple use principals and FLPMA were to govern NTSA routes and areas. Again, this is simply never addressed in USFS guidance and is directly contrary to any concept of a corridor being implemented in forest level planning.

The Organizations are simply unable to theorize any situation where the intent of Congress in passing the NTSA in 1968, the subsequent adoption of FLPMA and the 2016 CDT guidance can be reconciled, as Congress specifically stated that corridors should not be applied and managers retain authority to address site specific issues and challenges. This is deeply concerning given the fact that if Congress has specifically looked at a management tool and specifically declined its application, any implementation of such a tool in management is problematic. This type of direct material conflict is not mitigated with the passage of time especially when the clearly stated intent of Congress was to satisfy a variety of recreational interests with the passage of the NTSA. The Organizations vigorously assert that only those interests protected by the corridor would be satisfied with a corridor, and this must be avoided.

2c. Congress has consistently declined to require minimum exclusionary corridors around NTSA trails.

 Management of the CDT is specifically governed by the National Trail System Act (NTSA) which specifically addresses multiple usage of areas adjacent to trails and how these multiple use mandates will relate to management of the trail. The NTSA provides as follows:

“In selecting the rights-of-way full consideration shall be given to minimizing the adverse effects upon the adjacent landowner or user and his operation. Development and management of each segment of the National Trails System shall be designed to harmonize with and complement any established multiple use plans for that specific area in order to insure continued maximum benefits from the land.”14

The Organizations believe that Congress was very clear in these provisions, as they clearly stated maximum benefits from the land and harmony with multiple use planning was the objective. The Organizations submit that maximum benefits from the land as a management standard is a FAR more encompassing standard of management than maximizing benefit of the trail or an area to the users of the trail. Subsequently creating management standards that violated these provisions would be precluded as well as all of the management concerns Congress sought to remove with the acquisition requirements remain valid management standards on the NTSA route.

While the NTSA does provide that multiple uses are not allowed on an NTSA route in Wilderness Areas, National Wildlife Areas, and National Parks among other areas where such usage would be prohibited in 1968, the NTSA makes no mention of prohibitions for usage outside these areas. The Organizations submit that any buffer corridor expanding these prohibitions outside these areas would be a violation of this specific management standard and The Organizations is not able to understand how designating a corridor in the Resource management plan would not be a violation of these standards as the conflict would directly involve the multiple uses in the RMP rather than being implemented in subsequent planning. Congress has prohibited exclusionary corridors at any time around an NTSA route.

The NTSA also provides guidance on the large-scale relocation of any Congressionally designated scenic trail from its original location as the NTSA continues as follows:

“Relocation of a segment of national, scenic or historic trail…. A substantial relocation of the rights of way for such a trail shall be by Act of Congress.” 15

While Congress was clear on the desire to retain authority over the alteration of any National Trail, the failure to define “significant” places any changes in a national scenic trail from its original location, in the case of the CDT the 1977 report to Congress outlining its location, on questionable legal basis.

In several locations in the NTSA, proper recognition of multiple usage of a National Trail is specifically and clearly identified in areas outside Wilderness, Parks and National Wildlife Refuges. The NTSA explicitly provides allowed usages as follows:

“j) TYPES OF TRAIL USE ALLOWED. Potential trail uses allowed on designated components of the national trails system may include, but are not limited to, the following: bicycling, cross-country skiing, day hiking, equestrian activities, jogging or similar fitness activities, trail biking, overnight and long-distance backpacking, snowmobiling, and surface water and underwater activities. Vehicles which may be permitted on certain trails may include, but need not be limited to, motorcycles, bicycles, four-wheel drive or all-terrain off-road vehicles. In addition, trail access for handicapped individuals may be provided. The provisions of this subsection shall not supersede any other provisions of this chapter or other Federal laws, or any State or local laws.”16

The Organizations would note that given the specific recognition of snowmobiling, four-wheel drive and all-terrain vehicles as allowed trail usages, any attempt to exclude such usages from the CDT would be on questionable legal ground. In addition to the above general provisions regarding multiple usage in areas around a National Scenic Trail, multiple usage of the Continental Divide Scenic Trail is also specifically and repeatedly addressed and protected in the NTSA. The CDT guidance starts as follows:

“Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1246(c) of this title, the use of motorized vehicles on roads which will be designated segments of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail shall be permitted in accordance with regulations prescribed by the appropriate Secretary.”17

The NTSA further addresses and protects multiple usage of the CDT is further addressed as follows:

“Where a national historic trail follows existing public roads, developed rights-of- way or waterways, and similar features of man’s non-historically related development, approximating the original location of a historic route, such segments may be marked to facilitate retracement of the historic route, and where a national historic trail parallels an existing public road, such road may be marked to commemorate the historic route. Other uses along the historic trails and the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, which will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail, and which, at the time of designation, are allowed by administrative regulations, including the use of motorized vehicles, shall be permitted by the Secretary charged with the administration of the trail.18

In addition to the specific provisions of the NTSA addressing the CDT, the CDT management plan further addresses multiple usage including the high levels of multiple use on the CDT in 2009. The CDT plans specifically states:

“(2) At the time the Study Report was completed (1976), it was estimated that approximately 424 miles (14 percent) of existing primitive roads would be included in the proposed CDNST alignment.”19

While the CDT plan does recognize levels of roads utilization, the CDT plan does not specifically address the miles of multiple use trail that are aligned along the CDT. Rather than providing specific analysis of this usage, the CDT plan provides that trails adopted through the travel management process are an allowed usage of the CDT, providing as follows:

“Motor vehicle use by the general public is prohibited on the CDNST, unless that use is consistent with the applicable land management plan and:

  1. Is necessary to meet emergencies;
  2. Is necessary to enable adjacent landowners or those with valid outstanding rights to have reasonable access to their lands or rights;
  3. Is for the purpose of allowing private landowners who have agreed to include their lands in the CDNST by cooperative agreement to use or cross those lands or adjacent lands from time to time in accordance with Federal regulations;
  4. Is on a motor vehicle route that crosses the CDNST, as long as that use will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the CDNST;
  5. Is designated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B, on National Forest System lands or is allowed on public lands and:
    1. The vehicle class and width were allowed on that segment of the CDNST prior to November 10, 1978, and the use will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the CDNST or
    2. That segment of the CDNST was constructed as a road prior to November 10, 1978; or
  6. In the case of over-snow vehicles, is allowed in accordance with 36 CFR Part 212, Subpart C, on National Forest System lands or is allowed on public lands and the use will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the CDNST.”20

The CDT plan further adopts multiple use principals by clearly adopting management standards for motorized categories of the recreational opportunity spectrum and as a result the concept of an exclusively non-motorized corridor would directly conflict with the CDT plan. While the NTSA fails to specifically address multiple use trails along the CTD, the Management Plan does specifically provide that multiple use routes adopted under relevant travel management decisions shall be allowed and consistent with applicable planning. At no point in the CDT plan is the concept of an exclusionary corridor even mentioned.

The Organizations submit that while specific portions of the NTSA are less than clear when read in isolation or in an attempt to apply Wilderness or National Park type restrictions outside these areas, the NTSA is very clear in conveying the position that the CTD is truly a multiple use trail and that the CTD should not serve as a barrier to multiple usage of adjacent areas. The Organizations submit that creation of a landscape level buffer around the CDT, where multiple usage was prohibited or restricted would be a violation of both the NTSA and the CDT management plan. This should be avoided as there are significant challenges on the Gila that are on a sounder legal basis and of significantly more important level to most forest users.

2d. NTSA management specifically requires a maximizing of economic benefits with is supplemented by relevant US Supreme Court rulings and Executive Orders mandate agencies balance management priorities based on the cost benefit analysis of the standard.

The implementation of a non-motorized Wilderness corridor around the CDT also gives rise to a wide range of issues when looked at from a cost-benefit perspective, which is made even more complex by the fact that the CDT runs through a wide range of lands, including public and private lands. The Organizations are also concerned that any heightening of the CDT management and a possible corridor around the trail as a management objective in the forest plan would be a difficult proposition when reviewed from a cost benefit analysis and against the maximization of multiple use benefits requirements of the NTSA.

The NTSA guidance is clear on issues involving equity and usage of NTSA routes and the need to balance multiple usage based on these factors based on economic returns associated with the management of the route. The NTSA explicitly provides as follows:

“(9) the relative uses of the lands involved, including: the number of anticipated visitor-days for the entire length of, as well as for segments of, such trail; the number of months which such trail, or segments thereof, will be open for recreation purposes; the economic and social benefits which might accrue from alternate land uses; and the estimated man-years of civilian employment and expenditures expected for the purposes of maintenance, supervision, and regulation of such trail;”21

While the Gila has significant challenges facing all usage of the forest by the public, such as poor forest health, impacts of drought conditions and expanding visitation to the Gila and continued strong demand for recreational opportunities, the CDT is a resource that is simply not used at a large enough scale by those seeking to exclude multiple uses to warrant directing extensive resources to revision of management efforts. A review of the Continental Divide Trail Coalition website reveals that approximately 2 dozen people traverse the entire CDT on an annual basis. 22 Unfortunately, this information is not broken down to more specific levels, such as usage of the CDT at state or forest levels. The Organizations can vigorously assert excluding multiple uses across a corridor for the benefit of as few as two dozen people is not maximizing economic and social benefits of these lands. Such as position simply lacks any factual basis.

As land managers are specifically required to compare the economic benefits of alternative uses of the trail and any possible corridor under both multiple use principals of planning and as more specifically directed by the NTSA, accurate economic analysis information is critically important to the decision-making process. Additional new research regarding the economic importance of multiple use recreation to the recreational spending benefits flowing to local communities comes from research from the Department of Commerce, prepared at the request of Department of Interior Secretary Sally Jewel in 2012, addressing the importance of recreational spending in the Gross Domestic Product.23 This research also clearly identified the important role that motorized access plays in recreational spending, which is summarized in the following chart:

Chart showing Gross Output for Selected Conventional Outdoor Recreation Activities - 2016

Given the fact that significant portions of the CDT are primarily used for recreational purposes, the comparative spending profiles of recreational usage is highly important information. It has been The Organizations’ experience that often comparative data across user groups is very difficult to obtain. The USFS provided such data as part of Round 2 of the National Visitor Use Monitoring process and those conclusions are as follows:

Table 3. Visitor spending for high, average, and low spending areas by activity.

While the above agency summary data has become somewhat old, The Organizations simply don’t see any change in the comparative spending profiles of these user’s groups. The Organizations is aware of detailed research addressing certain portions of this analysis above. A copy of the most recent study of the Economic Contribution of the use of Off-Highway Vehicles in Colorado is attached to these comments. This analysis identifies a strong increase in the per person spending profiles of all user groups in the OHV/OSV community based on increased unit prices and new types of OHVs, such as side by side vehicles, being present in the marketplace.

The differences in comparative spending between the user groups allowed in a CDT corridor and those excluded from the corridor are stark and again simply do not favor designation of a landscape level corridor. When comparing the spending profiles of usages allowed in a proposed corridor such as hiking, primitive camping and cross-country skiing to the usages that are excluded from the corridor, such as OHV use and snowmobile the disparity of spending profiles is stark. The users excluded from a corridor spend anywhere from 1.5x to more than 2x the amount of the user groups that would be allowed in the corridor.

As a result of the stark differences in spending profiles of the users, visitation of those allowed in any corridor would have to essentially double throughout the year in order to offset lost economic benefits from the users that would be excluded. This position and expectation is factually unsupportable as visitation to certain portions of the CDT by permitted users is limited to as few as dozens of visitors per year, while visitation levels from users possibly excluded is significantly higher than the visitation levels that are allowed within a corridor. As a result, not only would corridor visitation have to double to offset lost users simply to break even on a per visitor days spending level but also the levels of visitation would have to massively expand as the levels of permitted corridor use is exceptionally low.

The Organizations do not contest that there are areas or attractions where the CDT sees very high levels of visitation but The Organizations is aware the areas of higher visitation are areas and issues that can be resolved at the site-specific level in an effective manner and should not be relied on for the basis of a forest wide corridor. Additionally, hikers of the trail are encouraged to visit local communities to the trail, which include Chama, Silver Springs and other communities. The Organizations is unsure how a Wilderness like corridor can be reconciled with developed resources such as these large communities. Any attempt to resolve these issues would be exceptionally expensive from a management perspective and would result in user conflict. The Organizations must question if these areas and CDT issues more generally could not be more effectively managed through site specific planning subsequent to the RMP finalization. The Organizations submit that there are numerous diverse challenges facing the CDT, many of which are highly site specific, which should be dealt with at the local level rather than trying to craft a landscape level fix to these issues. There are simply insufficient levels of utilization of the CDT at the landscape level to warrant inclusion of such issues in the RMP.

3.  A Cost/Benefit analysis of corridor management must also be addressed.

In addition to having to balance economic interests in management of NTSA areas, both President Trump (EO 13771 in 2017) and President Obama (EO 13563 in 2011) have issued Executive Orders requiring all federal agencies to undertake a cost benefit analysis of management decisions. The US Supreme Court recently specifically addressed the need for cost benefit analysis as an issue and stated as follows:

“And it is particularly so in an age of limited resources available to deal with grave environmental problems, where too much wasteful expenditure devoted to one problem may well mean considerably fewer resources available to deal effectively with other (perhaps more serious) problems.”25

Given this clear statement of concern over the wasteful expenditure of resources for certain activities or management decisions, The Organizations are very concerned regarding what could easily be the wasteful expenditure of resources for the benefit of what is a very small portion of the recreational community.

The Organizations submit that there can be no factually based arguments made that closures of large areas of the Galan to historical travel will not result in significant massive additional costs to land managers that really cannot be justified given the huge challenges managers are facing such as poor forest health and large increases in wildfire severity and frequency. Simply educating the public regarding the new closure would be exceptionally costly as new signage and other educational materials would have to be developed and then signage would have to be maintained. This would have to include signage that probably makes little sense on the ground as natural landmarks are not relied on for boundaries, and these signs would have to be placed in areas where they could be found and also maintained to insure signage is not buried in snow.

The Organizations submit that proper balancing of enforcement costs with the benefit to small user group is exactly the type balance that the Supreme Court and both President Obama and President Trump has expected the agencies to undertake as part of any planning process. The Organizations submit that a non-motorized corridor around the CDT fails from a cost benefit perspective even if Congressional action and relevant plans allowed such as management decision.

4.  Conclusion.

The Organizations are aware that often the lack of basic access to public lands due to management restrictions is a major management challenge when addressing large scale issues, such as poor forest health or drought. Providing a balanced management goal and objective for the Forest would allow for future managers to address challenges from population growth and meaningfully address challenges to the Forest that simply might not even be thought of at this time. Why are The Organizations concerned? Too often recreational access to public lands is lost when maintenance cannot be performed in a cost-effective manner. Adding additional management standards that will at a minimum need an additional round of NEPA planning to address future management challenges simply makes no sense.

The Organizations are very concerned that as exclusionary corridors around the CDT and other National Trail System Act routes have moved forward in resource planning, often these corridors immediately become non-motorized corridors without addressing existing usages of these corridor areas as exemplified by the multiple forests in California moving forward with winter travel planning and the adoption of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan in Southern California by the BLM and numerous forests in the Rocky Mountains. While corridors are immediately to be applied in the preferred alternative, at no point is there any analysis of possible impacts to existing usages is even mentioned despite numerous requirements in federal law requiring a specific review of these types of impacts.

The Organizations are pleased to have been provided this opportunity to provide input on the Gila NF planning process and looks forward to working to resolve any issues as the plan moves forward. Please feel free to contact either Don Riggle at 719-338-4106 or by mail at 725 Palomar Lane, Colorado Springs CO 80906 or Scott Jones, Esq at 518-281-5810 or by mail at 508 Ashford Drive, Longmont, CO 80504 for copies of any documentation that is relied on in this appeal or if you should wish to discuss any of the concerns raised further.

Respectfully Submitted,

Scott Jones, Esq.
TPA/ORBA Authorized Representative

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

Fred Wiley
CNSA Past President ORBA President
CEO One Voice Authorized Representative

 

 

  1. See, USDA Forest Service; Preliminary Draft Land Management Plan for the Gila NF; March 2018 at pg. 179. Hereinafter referred to as “the Proposal”.
  2. See, 16 USC 2146 (j).
  3. See, USDA Forest Service and New Mexico State Forest Service; New Mexico Forest Health Conditions; 2017 at pg. 1.
  4. See, Proposal at pg. 176.
  5. See, Proposal at pg. 176.
  6. See, Proposal at pg. 177.
  7. See, Proposal at pgs. 177-178.
  8. See, 2016 USFS CDT Guidance at Pg. 9 – Senate Report No 95-636, 1978 is not available to the public- when searched on the Congressional history the following report is provided: “As of 12/15/2017 the text of this report has not been received.”
  9. See, HRep 1631 at pg. 3873.
  10. See, HRep 1631 at pg. 3861.
  11. See, HRep 1631 at pg. 3859.
  12. See, HR 1631 at pg. 3873.
  13. See, 2016 USFS CDT Guidance at pg. 1.
  14. See, 16 USC 1246(a)(2) emphasis added.
  15. See, 16 USC 1246(b)(ii).
  16. See, 16 USC 1246(j).
  17. See, 16 USC 1244(a)(5)
  18. See, 16 USC 1246(C) emphasis added.
  19. See, USDA Forest Service; The 2009 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan; September 2009 at pg. 19.
  20. See, USFS: The Continental Divide Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan; 2009 at pg. 19.
  21. See, 16 USC §1244(b)(9)
  22. See, http://continentaldividetrail.org/cdtc-official-list-of-cdt-thru-hikers/
  23. See, Department of Commerce; Bureau of Economic Analysis; “Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account: Prototype Statistics for 2012-2016”; February 14, 2018 at pg. 2.
  24. See, USDA Forest Service; White and Stynes; Updated Spending Profiles for National Forest Recreation Visitors by Activity; September 2010 at pg. 6.
  25. See, Entergy Corp v. Riverkeeper Inc et al; 556 US; 475 F3d 83; (2009) Opinion of Breyer J, at pg. 4
Continue Reading

ALERT: Update – PSI Public Motor Vehicle Use EIS

Working drafts of the first two chapters of the United States Forest Service (USFS), Pike and San Isabel (PSI) National Forests Public Motor Vehicle Use, DRAFT Environmental Impact Study (EIS) have been posted to the USFS’s project website (http://www.psitravelmanagement.org/scoping-results/).  Working drafts of Chapter 1 (Purpose and Need for Action) and Chapter 2 (Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action) are now available for public review.  Tabular Summaries or spreadsheets listing each alternative and the recommended action (e.g., close, keep as is, decommission, etc.) for each and every motorized route within the PSI is also provided on the project website (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57754b452994ca3f91e9085e/t/5ad62b8e0e2e724d1f5a1752/1523985302218/180417PSI_PublicMotorVehicleUSeDEIS_DraftActionAlts_RoadsTrails.pdf).

Enthusiasts and persons interested in preserving public multiple-use and motorized access to roads and trails in the PSI should review these documents and carefully review the different alternatives (A through E) and the associated recommended action(s) for each of their favorite roads, routes and trails.  The TPA expects the next public comment period to commence early in 2019 after the entire DRAFT EIS is released for public review and comment.  Enthusiasts and person interested in preserving public motorized access are encouraged to begin preparing their written comments now based upon this preliminary information being provided by the USFS.

The TPA will issue additional alerts as more information becomes available.  For reference and information, the TPA’s previously submitted Scoping Phase comments are available here: (https://www.coloradotpa.org/2016/09/07/pike-san-isabel-national-forest-travel-management-eis/)

Continue Reading

The Plunge Proposal

BLM Grand Junction Field Office
ATTN: Palisade Plunge Trail
2815 H Road
Grand Junction, CO 81506

GMUG National Forest
Att: Scott Armentrout
2250 Highway 50
Delta, CO 81416

Re: The Plunge Proposal

Dear Katie and Scott;

Please accept this correspondence as the comments of the above referenced Organizations opposing The Plunge Trails Project, hereinafter referred to as “the Proposal”. The Organizations must oppose this Proposal as it directly conflicts with national trail guidance from the US Forest Service, BLM, IMBA and Colorado Parks and Wildlife, all of which clearly identify that there is a critical need for maintenance considerations to be addressed in the development of ANY trail project. The Organizations submit that these types of landscape considerations only work if everyone is held to the same standards, and the Organizations are aware that initial adoption of these types of landscape concerns can be difficult especially when efforts are overly focused on a single trail. The Organizations are becoming very frustrated that we are being forced to raise national maintenance guidance on so many projects throughout the state, as recently exemplified by this Proposal, Mad Rabbit, Burn Canyon, West Magnolia, and Signal Peak Mtn. Bike proposals. The motorized community has been the single largest partner of land managers for decades but application of varying levels of implementation of national guidance by user group or project is not acceptable to the motorized community as we are now the target of unnecessary conflict for asking questions of how this project conforms to the national guidance on the issue.

Many of these concepts regarding trail maintenance were institutionalized with the motorized community through the development of the voluntary adopted OHV registration program decades ago. The Organizations vigorously assert that while we were the FIRST ones to institutionalize maintenance efforts for the greater good, we never signed up to be the ONLY ones working for the greater good of the trails community. This program and partners now provide 10 maintenance crews in the northern end of the Grand Valley, and we are aware that agency money is leveraged in these efforts. When unsustainable projects are developed, the agency match to these efforts it put at risk, which is unacceptable to us especially when the unsustainable project benefits only a small portion of the trails community.

Prior to addressing our specific concerns, a brief summary of each Organization is needed. The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization advocating for the approximately 200,000 registered OSV and OHV vehicle users in Colorado seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado. COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations.

The Trail Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) is a 100 percent volunteer organization whose intention is to be a viable partner, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of trail riding. The TPA acts as an advocate of the sport and takes the necessary action to ensure that the USFS and BLM allocate to trail riding a fair and equitable percentage of access to public lands. For purposes of these comments, TPA and COHVCO will be referred to as “the Organizations”.

1a. The Organizations collaborate on a wide range of issues throughout the State.

Prior to addressing the Organizations specific concerns around the Proposal, the Organizations believe it is important to explain our history and background working on tough recreational issues with a diverse range of interests and public land managers throughout the State. A list of a few of these examples includes:

  • SB17-100 passage The Organizations spearheaded passage of this state Legislation that significantly reduced the liability for all clubs performing stewardship projects on public lands in Colorado. While this legislation protected all not for profit organizations, the only group that showed up to testify in support of these efforts was The Nature Conservancy;

  • CPW LEAN Event This project was the result of almost one year of collaborative efforts from the Organizations and CPW, the State Treasurers Office and numerous other groups regarding how to achieve more timely integration of grants from the trails program and as a result of these efforts all grants are now available to applicants almost 1 year earlier than before the LEAN event, and while these efforts again benefitted all grant applicants there was not support or input from any other user group;

  • Tenderfoot Mountain Project on Dillon Ranger District the multimillion dollar Tenderfoot Trail project was constructed to benefit a wide range of interests including motorized and mechanized users with improved wildlife habitat being the goal of the collaborative effort after years of abuse of the area by a wide range of interests;

  • Bear Creek Trails Project on the Pikes Peak Ranger District the Bear Creek Trail was moved and rebuilt from scratch to address possible impacts to genetically pure cutthroat trout habitat in the area; this project was more than 4 years of effort and the major source of funding was the OHV grant program;

  • Hermosa Watershed Legislation outside Durango – This was a first of its kind federal legislation addressing landscape management standards resulting from years of collaborative interests ranging from water, ranching, local government, snowmobile, summer motorized and mechanized and the Wilderness Society that took almost a decade;

  • Badger Flats Campground project on South Park Ranger District the Organizations collaborated with the Wilderness Society, campers, land managers, local property owners and other interests to renovate a poorly managed area into a regional trails hub and camping facility with an extensive multiple use trails network;

  • Bangs Canyon SMA outside Grand Junction – another collaborative spanning more than a decade on the GJFO where again a diverse range of interests collaborated to develop a multiple use area that also improved wildlife habitat and protected cultural resources for more than a decade;

  • 667 Trails Project on Pikes Peak Ranger District – restoration of a heavily used trail network lost in the Hayman Fire and then heavily impacted by flooding that resulted from almost 20 years of effort;

  • Hartman Rocks area of Gunnison Field Office – a multiple use area where ongoing efforts longer than a decade and have leveraged OHV resources to develop a unique trails-based recreation area that has been highly successful;

  • Canadian Lynx management research with USFWS – a project CSA partnered with the USFWS to facilitate targeted lynx research by providing resources and expertise to researchers working to understand the relationship between lynx habitat and recreation. This support ranged from removing snowmobiles that are broken or stuck in the backcountry during blizzards with CSA grooming equipment to oil and gas for basic operation to educating researchers on how to ride and operate equipment in the backcountry.

The Organizations are proud of the history of collaborative projects that have developed across often wide interest groups with benefits for all parties involved. In these efforts, often laying the groundwork has been very slow and often verging on shaky but throughout these efforts a strong foundation was important in uniting groups and interests as the projects moved forward and resulted in quality projects being developed and being successful in the long run.

The Organizations would also note that even where other groups could have been excluded from benefits of collaborative efforts because of their failures to become involved in any manner in the discussions or efforts (Such as SB 17-100; CPW LEAN; Lynx Research etc.) these groups have not been excluded from the scope of benefits. It is unfortunate that collaborative effort has not been displayed in more projects in the State, such as the passage of the lodging tax in Steamboat and related implementations that has been the driving force in this discussion. The Organizations submit that if such an open and collaborative effort had been pursued much earlier in the process for the Plunge development, BLM staff would not have been in the situation we are now facing.

1b. OHV/OSV funding to the CPW Trails Program benefits all users.

In addition to the above collaborative projects, the Organizations have supported the development and implementation of the voluntary registration programs for both summer and winter motorized recreation that is coupled with a small amount of funding from the Federal Recreational Trails Program. Similar discussions of voluntary registration programs have simply been dead on arrival when discussed with other trail user groups. It is important to note that the small amount of funding available to non-motorized programs through RTP has overwhelmingly provided to the mtn. bike community over the years. The voluntary OHV funding provides almost $8 million annually(or $1.25 for every resident of the State) per years for trails of all kinds, and this funding has been provided by the motorized community for more than 20 years. This funding maintains routes for the benefit of all users, as all motorized trails are open to all other forms of recreation and is essential to providing basic access and maintenance.

The lion’s share of this program funding is directed towards basic maintenance of existing facilities for a variety of reasons. The importance of just the $4.3 million in OHV funding to the entire recreation community is displayed in the following slide from the USFS presentation of Scott Haas at the 2015 OHV workshop:

Rocky Mountain Region Trails Budget

The Organizations have attached the CPW summary of the 2018 OHV funding grants for your reference, and avoid any discussion around possible inaccuracy of our summary of the program. While we are aware that this graphic is based on USFS budgets and spending, the Organizations have to believe the relationship is similar in terms of funding for the BLM. Furthermore the $4.3 million in OHV funding is leveraged with an additional $1.1 million dollars for winter recreation route maintenance and almost $2.4 million in funding for maintenance for non-motorized recreation. In addition to providing a massive portion of the funding for basic recreational funding in the State, motorized community has also been repeatedly identified as the largest single source of volunteer support for trails in the State of Colorado in annual VOC reports.

While the State Trails Program is the largest funding source in the State, the Organizations can say with absolute certainty, that this Program simply does not go far enough in terms of maintenance even with the support of the motorized community. The limited scope of benefit for this funding results in the desire to leverage the OHV program funding with all outside funding to provide basic maintenance of facilities, which we have generally come to summarize as “The rising tide floats all boats”.

The Organizations are also intimately familiar with the limited benefit that can be achieved with any outside funding to the program, which gives significant concern for the Proposal, especially when the Proposal is based in an area where basic maintenance will be expensive due to the steep angles of the route, highly erodible soils and remote nature of the project. The Organizations must ask that if there is truly funding available to support projects like this from outside sources, why would this funding not be used to support all recreational interests?

1c. What the motorized community does for maintenance in the Northern portions of the Grand Valley.

As previously noted, the CPW trails program is a strong partner with land managers in providing basic maintenance of recreational opportunities for all at the landscape level. The value of this program to both USFS and BLM land managers in the Grand Valley is almost $2 million per year, and directly benefits all recreational users of public lands. These support projects include:

  1. 6 good management crews in the Northern Grand Valley region;
    1. GFJO GM Crew;
    2. DENCA GM Crew;
    3. Grand Valley GM crew;
    4. Statewide Heavy crew on an as needed basis;
    5. UFO GM Crew; and
    6. West slope ATV Maintenance Crew.
  2. 4 winter grooming maintenance crews in northern Grand Valley;
    – Delta; Grand Junction, Rifle and Hotchkiss winter grooming programs that support hundreds of miles of groomed winter routes in the valley that are open to all free of charge; and
  3. Extensive direct funding for projects on an as needed basis;
    – this has provided motorcycles, rental of mini-excavators, rock breakers and trailers to leverage the efforts of maintenance crews and other volunteers.

The Organizations have embraced the maintenance needs of land managers and have been consistently informed that partnering in this manner is the single most effective manner to keep trails and opportunities open on public lands. The Organizations are aware that this partnership has resulted in multiple maintenance teams being available for most offices and are highly effective at leveraging agency resources. No other partner group comes close to this level of support. The difference that this funding has made to on the ground efforts is reflected in the fact that while most land managers have lost their trail maintenance crews in other parts of the country over the last 20 years, Colorado managers have expanded access to crews and equipment when compared to 20 years ago. Almost all of this funding and equipment has come from the voluntary registration program that embraced maintenance efforts more than a decade ago.

While the Organizations have provided a strong partnership with land managers for the benefit of all recreational users of public lands in Colorado, there is clearly a need for additional partner funding. The allocation of this partner funding is often concerning when projects are moved forward where there is not a mentality of the rising tide floating all boats or where large sums of money are used for the benefit of a small user group. This type of single minded proposal places undue stress on existing efforts to benefit all users, as for a rising tide type model to be successful, all users must be working towards the same goals. Additional stress is placed on these types of partner models when projects are moved forward and there is no model of maintenance for the project once it is completed. This is a double loss in the eyes of the Organizations as:

  1. Funding was allocated to the project originally and has been lost for maintenance; and
  2. Existing maintenance demand is expanded to keep unsustainable and expensive projects open and maintained, which draws maintenance money away from other efforts.

The Organizations must vigorously assert that when the rising tide model is not adopted for all projects, this puts the Organizations in the situation where new trails for multiple use are not being built while other groups are creating trails for the benefit of themselves. The situation where the motorized community would not be able to build trails, despite maintaining roads and trails used to access the area, while other users are allowed to build trails without addressing the basic maintenance of routes and trailheads used to access those trails is simply and foundationally unacceptable to the motorized community. This is where the partnership with land managers is needed, to encourage other users to help float the greater boat.

2a. The Plunge fails basic questions provided in national BLM/IMBA Guidance on trail construction.

The sustainability of any remote steep route, that is on highly erodible soils that sees high levels of visitation is a major hurdle for development of the route both in terms of basic planning and the need for ongoing maintenance. Even with the best designs, trails with these parameters simply need maintenance. The failure to recognize this in the EA for the Proposal is troubling. Rather than meaningfully addressing this issue, the EA simply asserts as follows:

“Long-term Maintenance
Long-term maintenance would be the responsibility of the respective land management agencies (BLM and Forest Service) and their partners (e.g., COPMOBA) and would include repair of erosion control features, culverts, and corridor clearing (brush and tree removal or trimming) as needed. The land managers and their partners would maintain the trail to meet the trail management objectives, specifications, and user experiences described above, and in the EA for the Palisade Rim Trail (DOI-BLM-CO- 130-2010-0047-EA). Short reroutes, within 20 ft of the original designated route, would be authorized if a natural event (e.g., flash flood, rock slide) substantially alters the usability of the route, and standard maintenance is not practical. The BLM and Forest Service would monitor the trail at least once annually and more frequently following intense high rainfall precipitation events to determine which areas require maintenance. The BLM and Forest Service would also use other landowner, user, and partner reported maintenance needs to help determine priority areas and timing for maintenance.”1

It has been the motorized community experience that many of these basic maintenance challenges are far more easily resolved with funding but there is no similar funding stream for other trail communities in Colorado even though many of these same challenges were highlighted in new guidance from the BLM on developing successful mountain bike projects. The identification of funding to address maintenance issues identified above are major challenges for any trail project and were a driving force for the motorized community to establish the OHV program in Colorado. We simply cannot understand how these costs are not more meaningfully addressed in the Proposal.

These types of basic maintenance challenges are consistently identified as major planning issues by all land managers, and the Organizations believe these national statements speak for themselves. The BLM national guidance created in partnership with advocates for the interests now seeking to develop the Proposal (IMBA) outlines these concerns as follows:

“Three components of trail sustainability

  1. Environmental sustainability – Will the Trail provide for resource protection?This is the definition that is commonly used when referring to what does or does not provide for a sustainable trail.
  2. Social sustainability- this is frequently overlooked in the trail development process. Evidence of the failure to meet desired user outcomes (experiences and associated benefits) are everywhere: Overcrowded trails; trails with little use; trail users who feel pushed out by other users and unauthorized routes
  3. Economic sustainability – Can the land managers and local community bear the long terms costs of maintaining a trail? If it provides a valuable experience, is it likely worth the investment, but this must be weighed against shrinking maintenance budgets” 2

The economic sustainability challenges are more extensively detailed in subsequent portions of these comments but the social and resource sustainability questions must not be overlooked as well. Social sustainability concerns are based on the fact that the project fails to address the rising tide floating all boats and resource sustainability will be a major issue given the steep terrain, highly erodible soil, remote nature of the project and high-speed nature of the trail. The direct and vigorous user conflict between ourselves and the mountain bike community that has resulted from the motorized community asking questions such as those posed in these comments is direct evidence of the negative social sustainability around the Proposal.

The environmental sustainability concerns simply will have to be addressed as the project moves forward , even if there is no funding for these issues and they have not been addressed in the EA. The critical need to identify the environmental concerns for the projects, and how they will be mitigated, is a major concern for the Proposal given that a significant portion of the trail is located in BLM management areas where the goals are for Wildlife Habitat. The site-specific challenges resulting from a project of this size in a remote area, on highly erodible soils with a large number user on an exceptionally steep slope are addressed in subsequent portions of these comments.

2b. The Plunge has major conflicts with USFS trail sustainability goals.

As the Organizations have noted above, significant volunteer efforts and direct funding of land manager efforts for decades has been directed towards the basic sustainability of the motorized portions of the trail network throughout the state of Colorado. Again, the Organizations must stress that every mile of route maintained is available to ALL types of usages. The need for expansion of this model of management and sustainability was highlighted in 2016 when the USFS issued the US Forest Service National Strategy for sustainable trails system, which expanded the model that has been so successful in Colorado as national programmatic goals and objects for trails management moving forward.

This strategy highlights the basic need to form maintenance and sustainability partnerships with the following reasoning as follows:

“Achieving a sustainable trail system presents several challenges. With limited funding, compounded by the rising cost of wildfire operations and the associated decrease of nearly 40 percent in nonfire personnel, the Forest Service faces a lack of capacity for managing trails on the ground and for building partnership synergies within the trails community.”3

The Sustainable Trail initiative continues on how the challenges faced by the Agency as a result of the declines in budgets as follows:

“A generation ago, nearly every ranger district had its own trail crew, but that is no longer the case. The Forest Service will overcome a significant reduction in field staff by moving from a model of “doing it all” to a model of shared stewardship in order to achieve mutual goals and receive shared benefits.”4

Colorado can vigorously stand as a complete variation from this norm, as every ranger district and field office has access to a crew and almost every ranger district and filed office has a dedicated motorized trails crew on the district as a result of the OHV program. There are six of dedicated summer crews on the Northern end of the Grand Valley planning area and another 4 winter crews. The Organizations must ask why other groups are not seeking to leverage these relationships and experiences?

The critical need for land managers to lead partners on the need for sustainable trails and recreational opportunities is also highlighted in the USFS Sustainable Trails efforts as follows:

Sustainable Change: Leader-led change is often initiated with a high level of impact that may wane over time. Grassroots-led change often grows slowly, yet must be adopted by leadership to achieve lasting results. Sustainable change is cultivated where leader intent meets grassroots initiative and both are infused with regular feedback and support.”5

It is interesting to note that the high levels of impacts may result from USFS efforts to instill this type of grassroots model for recreation trails is specifically identified in the 2016 but for reasons these impacts have often been simply avoided, sparing applied and then avoided again after perceived impacts were expressed.

The USFS Sustainable trails initiative further highlights the seven core values of the partnerships as follows:

Core Values
At the Forest Service, we are embracing seven core values and invite our partners, volunteers, and friends to join us in adopting these values to guide our collective efforts. By adopting the following core values, we lay the foundation together for making sustainable trail systems a priority and ensuring pathways to public lands remain—for all people, for many generations to come.

Safety—We value the safety of trail users, volunteers, partners, and employees and are dedicated to performing our work safely and providing safe trail opportunities for all.

Sustainability—We value the land and will steward a trail system that is relevant to a changing society, is ecologically viable, and that can be sustained by current and potential partner, volunteer, and agency resources.

Commitment—We value the strong traditions, skills, and dedication of our partner, volunteer, and employee workforce and will foster continued growth through training and leadership opportunities.

Access—We value the ability of everyone to connect to the outdoors and are committed to providing quality access through a variety of trail settings and opportunities.

Inclusion—We value everyone—trail users, partners, volunteers, employees, and friends, regardless of age, ability, or cultural background.

Communication—We value the exchange of information that is up-to-date, accurate, widely available in multiple formats, and relevant to both trail users and those involved in sustainable trail planning, design, and maintenance.

Relationships—We value collaborative relationships and are committed to working across jurisdictional and cultural boundaries to maximize diverse skillsets and generate innovative approaches.”6

With the passage of the National Trail System Stewardship Act in 2016, Congress memorialized many of the goals and objectives of the USFS Sustainable Trails Strategy into law.7 As a result, not only is some of the foundationaldecision-makingtroubling the Organizationsaround the Proposal, it is a violation of the USFS Strategy and now could be a violation of federal law.

While the Organizations have strived to achieve these common values and goals of the National Policy well before the National Policy was formalized, many other groups have not been as proactive. The Organizations must question why the National Policy has not been raised in these planning efforts by the district. That has highly frustrated the Organizations as we are now being forced to address these National Goals and Objectives of the Agency alone.

2c. The Plunge conflicts with the 2017 CPW Trails Master Plan.

The Organizations must that CPW has developed a Statewide Master Plan for Trails, and the Proposal also conflicts with the requirements of this plan as well. The CPW statewide plan provides as follows:

“4. Emphasize responsible stewardship for all phases of trail development and use.

4.1 Accentuate the importance of natural resources conservation, including wildlife and habitat, in conjunction with trail recreation, in the design, construction, maintenance, and enjoyment of trails.

4.2 Prioritize trails development and maintenance that is sustainable and sensitive to the environment, while complementing other land uses (e.g., people can use trails to commute to work or school as well as recreation).”8

The high level of consistency across these three planning agencies and documents should not be overlooked or minimized regarding the need for maintenance and sustainability for any opportunities. Despite this the Proposal simply transfers monitoring and most managing expenses to the land managers, but this type of allocation is exactly the type of decision making that national guidance from all relevant land managers have clearly and directly identified as a major planning goal.

2d. Basic sustainability of any trail project is a major challenge.

As noted above the motorized community has institutionalized funding of basic maintenance in partnership with land managers throughout the state and as a result is now able to identify the rock star trail maintenance crews and those projects and areas where basic maintenance needs are not being met. From this location, a systemic failure to understand the basic needs of the trails community regarding the ongoing maintenance needs from certain user groups has resulted in the collapse of some trail networks in the state already. Mainly this has resulted from situations where users have pledged to support trail expansions, managers are then subjected to intense public pressure to build the trail network and then users are unable to provide basic maintenance, seasonal closure resources and educational materials as pledged.

A few examples of these collapses are exemplified by the following projects:

  1. Shavano to Gateway Project – City of Montrose is now being brought in to manage an area previously expanded and maintained by users after there was a complete failure of seasonal closures and basic maintenance;
  2. Several trail expansion projects in the Grand Valley area where a failure of maintenance in the area was identified in the recently released RMP but users continue to push for expansions of routes after local communities have pledged maintenance resources;
  3. Steamboat City Park System maintenance- Another situation where an expanded trail network has been developed and then users are failing to maintain that system;
  4. Vail Valley Expansion- This project outside Avon Colorado was the result of systemic failures to enforce seasonal closures and for mtn. bikers to stay on designated routes.

The challenges faced by partner driven projects for land managers has also been highlighted in numerous articles in local papers. BLM managers addressed the Oil Well Flats area outside Colorado Springs as follows:

“the success of the Oil Well Flats is a proud sight for Leonard, who personally designed the network and lead the coalition of volunteers, cycling enthusiasts and trail groups that built it…..though some of the areas admirers might find it hard to swallow, adding miles to Oil Well Flats would pose an undue strain on the area, which has no toilets and can only support so much dispersed camping….. It is a situation that has become familiar at the climbing areas along Shelf Road to the North. There the BLM has struggled to keep up with demand for campsites, toilets and access trails….. BLM is working on addressing the growing pains at the Oil Well Flats, including the top concern: Managing human waste.”9

These challenges are not limited to the Oil Well Flats area as the Durango Herald recently published a detailed article about the challenges that are facing land managers in the Durango area from illegal trail building, failures of users to obey use restrictions and impacts from the lack of partner maintenance. A copy of this article is included with these comments. While these types of articles have become common place in Colorado and these are issues where the Organizations have partnered effectively to address these challenges for multiple use areas, the Organizations submit this model of successful trail projects must be applied to all projects regardless of the types of usage. Ignoring these problems will not make them go away but it will reduce the amount of funding that can be leveraged for the benefit of all users of public lands.

In addition to the direct request for funding to the State Trails Program, other indications are often noted and concerning around the long-term sustainability of any trail program. These would include numerous requests for maintenance grants from various land managers to third parties, and the CPW trails program has been the recipient of an alarmingly large number of these after the fact types of grants the last several years. what has become a systemic issue mainly that grant applications identifies the critical shortfall that already exists on routes outside those maintained by the motorized crews. Often some of the largest management and maintenance challenges that are presented are unrelated to a project, such as recreational shooting, trash removal and basic upkeep of facilities such as toilets. These are issues that also must be addressed in the Plunge as it is significant to note that CPW was not able to fund any of these after the fact grants in the last several cycles as non-motorized money is super competitive, often has high match amounts and is not matched with any voluntary user type registration monies.

These types of systemic problems are a major concern for the Plunge as several of the partners in developing the Proposal have already pledged to maintain thousands of miles of trails in the Grand Valley. The results of these pledges on the ground have been mixed as partners are basing the ability to maintain on positions that simply lack factual basis. Thousands of miles of trails cannot be maintained with a few volunteers and hand tools and is concretely exemplified by the fact the average good management crew can only maintain 100-200 miles of routes a year. The Organizations are aware that many of these partners have made extensive commitments across numerous land management agencies and offices in the Grand Valley and often land managers are unable to determine a total commitment from the that partner because of these land management boundaries and agencies. The Organizations would ask that before any project moves forward that any partner in the maintenance of the project be thoroughly vetted to fully address commitments made already, resources that have been identified, the previous successes or failures of that partner and clearly identifying new resources that will be provided for the new route. The Organizations would note that these types of concerns from land managers are exactly why the OHV grant program developed in the manner it did.

Given the Organizations decades of involvement in the State Trails program, the Organizations are aware of the level of resources and dedicated staff that is necessary to maintain this mileage of routes. Full time employees, such as the good management crews, that are well equipped is a bare minimum and access to heavier mechanized equipment is a critical component of a successful maintenance program. Plunge development partners simply don’t have access to these types of resources and any assertion that the levels of maintenance can be done with hand tools and volunteers on the weekend simply lacks any factual basis. When projects are developed but not maintained, land manager resources are removed from partnerships where the rising tide is floating all boats and are reallocated to try and avoid failure of poorly developed projects and this negatively impacts all recreational access in the planning area and further more results in negative environmental impacts to the area. These type of impacts are a major black eye for all trails users.

2e. Funding to even construct the Plunge is weak.

The Organizations are aware that the Proposal is one of the Governor’s 16 in 16 or Colorado the Beautiful Proposals. When the 16 was developed there was a pledge of $10 million raised from partners to develop these projects. This partner funding has resulted in less than $2 million for construction. This is not a major hurdle to be overlooked for mere construction of the route but this results in larger issues for the long-term maintenance of the route. Where does this leave maintenance? On the shoulders of the land managers is the answer.

Unfortunately, this is not the only time when pledged partner funding for projects simply failed to materialize. When the Tenderfoot project on Dillon Ranger District was in initial stages, significant portions of funding was alleged to be available from unspecified sources from the non-motorized interests. This funding simply never developed at levels close to the assertions and the motorized program and land managers bore the lions share of costs to remediate a multiple use area. Similar experiences have also occurred on the Bear Creek project on the Pikes Peak Ranger District. Large amounts of user passion are simply not a replacement for an identifiable funding source for development and maintenance of projects. Projects simply cannot move forward with unsubstantiated assertions of abilities of partners. Projects must be based on a demonstrated ability of a partner to continue to maintain what they have and the new network that is being asked for. Often partners cannot maintain what they have.

3a. The Plunge is a huge project and will need constant maintenance.

Whatever the Plunge project looks like when completed, it will need significantbasic maintenance for the foreseeable future due to the steep terrain, erodible soils, levels of usage and remote location of the route. Insuring that is funded by the users supporting that project is critical to insuring that limited land manager funds are not directed away from the current maintenance backlog to address new trails used by a small portion of the trails community. There will need to be trees cut off trails, facilities maintained, trash removed, users educated about route locations and the need to stay on the trail, seasonal gates installed and used that will remain ongoing. Compounding these challenges is the fact that other easier routes currently exist in the planning area that will continue to need maintenance and upkeep even after the Plunge is opened.

Generally, the social sustainability of the Plunge is a serious question given the small target audience that will be using the Plunge. This is simply not a route that can be used by the average bicycle rider as most will not seek out a one way only trail of more than 30 miles in length. Even for those that seek out the opportunity, most simply will not be able to traverse the highly technical 30-mile route and will seek to end their ride well before the end of the trail. This is an issue as there are no bailouts for riders who want to exit early in the Proposal, and as a result unauthorized trails will explode as people simply seek to end their recreational experience on the Plunge. Any assertion of value to any other user groups simply lacks factual basis given the high-speed nature of gravity biking that will be occurring on the Plunge. People simply will not hike on this trail.

The economic sustainability of the Plunge is also a major concern as under most planning guidelines for trails, the Plunge simply would not be constructed. The Proposal is simply too steep, soils are too erodible and the distance covered is simply too long. Even providing basic maintenance for the route will be a major challenge as equipment will have to travel over long distances on steep and rocky loose terrain to perform basic maintenance. You simply cannot get mechanized equipment over the step terrain and even transporting a chainsaw to cut trees will be difficult. Given the steep nature of the Plunge, maintenance of even a properly designed trail will have to occur on a weekly basis. In this section of our comments, we desire to provide concrete examples of the lack of social and economic sustainability around the project. This is by no means exhaustive but it rather intended to clearly establish the basis for our concerns on the Proposal.

With regard to economic sustainability, throughout out the Proposal, administrative and operational costs are simply overlooked or transferred to land managers without discussion. The EA simply provides as follows:

“Long-term Maintenance
Long-term maintenance would be the responsibility of the respective land management agencies (BLM and Forest Service) and their partners (e.g., COPMOBA) and would include repair of erosion control features, culverts, and corridor clearing (brush and tree removal or trimming) as needed. The land managers and their partners would maintain the trail to meet the trail management objectives, specifications, and user experiences described above, and in the EA for the Palisade Rim Trail (DOI-BLM-CO-130-2010-0047- EA)…. The BLM and Forest Service would monitor the trail at least once annually and more frequently following intense high rainfall precipitation events to determine which areas require maintenance.”10

The draft EA for the Proposal clearly identifies the route will cross no less than 18 waterbodies 11, which are identified as follows:

Waterbodies Crossed by Proposed Trail

As previously noted, the Proposal asserts that the primary maintainer and monitor of these 18 water crossings would be the land managers. These are the kind of basic maintenance and monitoring that the motorized community has worked hard to assist in addressing. It is unacceptable that other users would now be allowed to transfer this type of basic maintenance cost to land managers without clearly identifying how it will be paid for. This is not a rising tide floating all boats.

Unfortunately, water crossings are not the only time that specific management costs are never addressed or badly underestimated, such as the 14 different locations that signage will be necessary. The Proposal asserts that signage will simply be provided on an as needed basis for the Proposal as follows:

“The BLM and Forest Service may place trail markers at 1-mile intervals if monitoring indicates that this is necessary. Possible locations for long-term signage, gates, and kiosks, and limiters are:”12

The expectations of this signage are aggressive to say the least as the EA states:

“Long-term signage would be installed to help users have a better trail experience, to provide for safety on the trail, and to provide educational information. The signs would include trail name signs and maps within the trail system and trailhead signs at trailheads and/or major intersection points. The frequency of trail markers would be based upon monitoring of trail users.”13

Clearly the EA is expecting something significantly more than carsonites with stickers for designations, which has been the norm on public lands for decades. These may not be the prettiest signs but they are cost effective and easily replaced. Developing and maintaining signage such as that expected in the Proposal is hugely expensive compared to carsonites. Signage is an issue the OHV community is intimately familiar with as we are aware that even carsonites are expensive and often have a short lifespan and need to be replaced, especially in the early stages of a project, or when closing social routes. Signage is again basic operational costs that the motorized community has born for decades outside the good management programs through the OHV program at levels approaching $100,000 per year. It is simply unfair to move these types of costs over to land managers. Some type of identified funding source for these signs must be identified and clearly incorporated in the EA. Simply expecting it to happen is unrealistic and exactly the type of maintenance costs that national guidance seeks to have clearly identified.

Social trails are another issue where costs of management are simply never addressed. This will be a major concern as many users who start the Plunge trail will probably be overwhelmed quickly by the high-altitude nature of the trail and high levels of expertise needed. Rather than seeking to finish the 30-mile one-way trail, these riders will look for a way out of the trail, regardless of the designation of the route. These escape routes will be problematic given the fact that significant portions of the Plunge are in Hookless Cactus and designated wildlife habitat areas. Rather than addressing the ongoing nature of this challenge, the EA asserts this mitigation will only be occurring on the front end of the project. Hookless cactus issues are of serious concern to the motorized community as a result of the fact that anytime there is litigation on any ESA plant issues, all trails are immediately challenged and land managers are often forced to close all routes until the litigation is resolved. This was recently again highlighted in the PSI litigation against the USFS by defenders of Wildlife and others. In addition to reducing partner funding, motorized trails would be put at risk direct risk of loss if this management fails.

The Organizations believe a brief discussion regarding the hazard tree situation on the district highlights the need for an expansion of basic maintenance efforts with partners. The following pictures represent daily situations where trees have fallen across designated routes and have fallen in a location that creates a basic safety concern for the public. Situations like this must be resolved in a timely manner to avoid safety concerns for trails users and insure that the public does not reroute the trail footprint to continue use of these routes.

Fallen tree Path with fallen tree to side

It has been the Organizations experience that this is the type of basic maintenance that can only be effectively done with a dedicated crew in a timely manner, despite a large number of these issues being simply addressed by the public when encountered. Often these issues are simply removed by a maintenance crew that is using the trail to get to a larger worksite. While probably entirely unnecessary to state, these maintenance issues are entirely unrelated to the trail design and layout as trees are going to fall for decades no matter how the trails are laid out.

While informal partner groups might be able to address smaller hazard tree related issues, as a result of the poor forest health on the district trails and routes are now being subjected to major blowdown events that involve hundreds of trees over an extended length of trail. In the picture below, the designated route runs directly through the center of the blowdown.

major blowdown trees

The Organizations are intimately aware that resolving blowdown situations such as those above can take a professional crew utilizing modern equipment weeks to resolve. Any assertion that an informal maintenance program can deal with challenges of this scale simply lacks factual basis and should not be overlooked in a rush of public interest to build trails. The Organizations submit that failure to address the growing scale of maintenance needs will result in limited land manager resources being drawn away from existing maintenance crew efforts that we know are still not going far enough on existing trails.

3b. Education of users at the landscape level will be an important component of the Proposal.

The Organizations are also aware that there are extensive wildlife concerns around the plunge Proposal, which have been compounded by the recent significant expansions of trails in the in the Grand Valley for the benefit of the mountain bike community. This is another issue that the Organizations are very concerned about as once an area is at capacity in terms of wildlife habitat, it has been our experience that no new trails or other facilities are allowed. Developing an understanding of what that capacity across this area really looks like will be a significant issue moving forward for species such as elk and deer. These are issues that simply are not addressed in the Proposal. This is another area where meaningfully addressing maintenance and education of users regarding seasonal closures and other management tools will be critical to the success of any trail expansions. The motorized community is concerned about the success of any trail expansion, as has been shown on the PSI, litigation will pull all trails users into the matter, regardless of if the specific trails are involving that group or not.

In what has become an interesting issue, the basic need for a stay the trail or tread lightly type ethic program for all users of public lands in addition to the maintenance and monitoring previously addressed has become very apparent as research indicates that:

“Outdoor recreation has the potential to disturb wildlife, resulting in energetic costs, impacts to animals’ behavior and fitness, and avoidance of otherwise suitable habitat. Mountain biking is emerging as a popular form of outdoor recreation, yet virtually nothing is known about whether wildlife responds differently to mountain biking vs. more traditional forms of recreation, such as hiking….Few studies have examined how recreationists perceive their effects on wildlife, although this has implications for their behavior on public lands…..Approximately 50% of recreationists felt that recreation was not having a negative effect on wildlife. In general, survey respondents perceived that it was acceptable to approach wildlife more closely than our empirical data indicated wildlife would allow. Recreationists also tended to blame other user groups for stress to wildlife rather than holding themselves responsible.”9

This situation was very interesting to the motorized community as everyone has blamed motorized usage for decades for every issue on public lands. Here we have a situation where motorized impacts are irrelevant but the need for many of the same guidance and educational materials is equally as important to the success of the project as they have been for motorized usage and there are no provisions made for these types of materials.

3c. Seasonal closures are completely unrealistic.

Another example of the complete lack of basis for the Proposal involves the winter closures, which will need to actually be enforced as the Plunge is immediately adjacent to a wildlife concentration area and is habitat for numerous amphibians. It has been the Organizations experience that any areas where amphibians are present is to be seasonally closed during the breeding season to avoid contact between recreational usage and the toads. It has also been our experience that when populations decline motorized is blamed despite the fact that they may not be the issue. Despite these concrete concerns for seasonal closures the EA merely states:

“Winter Closure
Winter closure (December 1 through May 1) for mountain biking would be in effect from MP 11.6 on NFS lands to the eastern boundary of and through the BLM Rapid Creek Wildlife Emphasis Area ending at the intersection with the southern Palisade Rim Connector trail near MP 30.4. The BLM would use adaptive management to provide flexibility for the location of the western extent of the big game winter closure (e.g., specific dates may be adjusted annually based on weather conditions and coordination with CPW). Mountain bike riders would be allowed to use the trail from the intersection near MP 30.4 to eastern boundary of the Rapid Creek Wildlife Emphasis Area near MP 27.48 as long as BLM monitoring indicates that trail cyclists are not continuing to the south past MP 27.48 during the winter closure period.

If BLM monitoring indicates that any cyclists are riding to the south past MP 27.48, then the BLM would enforce the closure point at the trail intersection near MP 30.4. The BLM would consider moving the closure location as far west as MP 30.4 if there are any violations of the winter closure point at MP 27.48. Big game winter range closures may also include pedestrian travel (e.g., hikers and runners) if the BLM determines that this additional use restriction is necessary to reduce disruption to big game during the winter season. The BLM may adjust seasonal limitation periods annually based on coordination with CPW (e.g., mild winters, late hunting seasons, etc.). Proper gates and signage would be installed to ensure adherence to the winter closure. Trail segments on other portions of NFS lands would “self close” in the winter due to winter conditions.”14

The number of assertions that are made in that winter closure standard is astonishing and directly evidences the complete lack of understanding of how to implement a winter closure. Variable dates of closure are impossible to educate any user group regarding and clear dates are the only way to address trail access for summer recreation. Without the prohibition of the hard dates, people will assume the route is open. When people have traveled to the top of the trail, they are going to use it. Seasonal closures are most effective when they are consistent so users can travel to other locations to recreate and can be provided to users before they reach the trailhead.

The Organizations would also note that the assumption that BLM will monitor the area is immediately made along with the assumption of installation of gates and BLM will be available to open and close these gates on an as needed basis. Again these are costs and management issues that are not addressed and should be in order to develop a successful project and avoid impacts to existing funding and not putting other users routes at risk when management of the issue fails. These are the basic management challenges that resulted in the good management program being created by the motorized community and have been the downfall of many of the non-motorized trail projects in the state previously addressed.

4. Economics contributions from the Proposal are simply unrealistic.

The Organizations are also concerned that one of the major benefits to local communities and economies is tragically overestimated and simply never even addressed in the EA. This overestimate is concerning as there are clearly expansive costs for the development and maintenance of the project that are not meaningfully addressed. According to supporters of the Proposal the Proposal would result in an estimated $5 million a year in spending for the planning area.15 No basis for the estimation is provided, so unfortunately this is an issue the Organizations are forced to address with general information on the issue.

In 2014, Mountain bike researchers concluded that those using backcountry mountain bike trails in the Squamish areas outside Whistler BC ski areas spent $37 for visitor per day.16 These conclusions are reasonably consistent with both USFS and BLM conclusions regarding the spending of the mtn. bike community utilizing backcountry opportunities. In order to generate $5 million annually the Plunge would need to generate more than 136,000 plus visitor days or more per year. That would be more than 11,000 visitors per day on average for the 7-month period the Plunge is expected to be open. Such a high level of visitation is again basis for questions about basic maintenance of the Trail.

There is simply no basis in fact or reality for such levels of visitation to the Plunge and rather much easier trails in the area are simply not seeing anywhere near this level of visitation. The Organizations have been actively involved in discussions around possible impacts to the Vail Pass National Recreation Trail from lane expansions on I70 between mile markers 180 and 190 in Summit and Eagle Counties. The Vail Pass National recreation trail sees high levels of visitation to the area, both from the general public and permittees due to the proximity to I70, as the trail weaves in, under and around I70 in this area. This is an easily accessible paved trail that is nationally recognized. Despite this ease of access and broad appeal, USFS estimates visitation at levels of only 1/3 of the visitation that is projected for the Plunge.

While the economic contribution of the Vail Pass National Recreation, trail was not estimated in the I70 project, the USFS was able to provide detailed information on visitation, which is as follows:

I-70 West Vail Pass Statistics

Given the disparity or Proposal estimates when compared to detailed high-quality information from other sources, the Organizations must seriously question the accuracy of the information used to calculate these benefits. These types of failures are even more concerning given the systemic failure to address basic operational costs of the Project.

Conclusion.

The Organizations must oppose this project as it directly conflicts with national trail guidance from the US Forest Service, BLM, IMBA and Colorado Parks and Wildlife, all of which clearly identify that there is a critical need for maintenance considerations to be addressed in the development of ANY trail project. The Organizations submit that these types of landscape considerations only work if everyone is held to the same standards, and the Organizations are aware that initial adoption of these types of landscape concerns can be difficult especially when efforts are overly focused on a single trail. The Organizations are becoming very frustrated that we are being forced to raise national maintenance guidance on so many projects throughout the state, as recently exemplified by this Proposal, Mad Rabbit, Burn Canyon, West Magnolia, and Signal Peak Mtn. Bike proposals. The motorized community has been the single largest partner of land managers for decades but application of varying levels of implementation of national guidance by user group or project is not acceptable to the motorized community as we are now the target of unnecessary conflict for asking questions of how this project conforms to the national guidance on the issue.

Many of these concepts regarding trail maintenance were institutionalized with the motorized community through the development of the voluntary adopted OHV registration program decades ago. The Organizations vigorously assert that while we were the FIRST ones to institutionalize maintenance efforts for the greater good, we never signed up to be the ONLY ones working for the greater good of the trails community. This program and partners now provide 10 maintenance crews in the northern end of the Grand Valley, and we are aware that agency money is leveraged in these efforts. When unsustainable projects are developed, the agency match to these efforts it put at risk, which is unacceptable to us especially when the unsustainable project benefits only a small portion of the trails community.

Please feel free to contact Scott Jones, Esq. if you should wish to discuss any of the issues that have been raised in these comments further. His contact information is Scott Jones, Esq., 508 Ashford Drive, Longmont Colorado 80504; phone 518-281-5810; email Scott.jones46@yahoo.com

 

Respectfully Submitted,
Scott Jones, Esq.
COHVCO/TPA Authorized Representative
Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

Enclosures

 

 

 

1 See, DOI BLM Preliminary Environmental Assessment for the Palisade Plunge Trail; March 2018 at pg. 24.

2See, DOI Bureau of Land Management and IMBA; Guidelines for a Quality Trail Experience; Mountain Bike Trail Guidelines; January 2017 at pg. 4.

3See, USDA Forest Service; National Strategy for A Sustainable Trail System; December 30, 2016 at pg. 3. Hereinafter referred to as “USFS strategy”.

4 See, USFS Strategy at pg. 3.

5 See, USFS Strategy at pg. 4.

6 See, USFS Strategy at pg. 5.

7 See, PUBLIC LAW 114–245—NOV. 28, 2016.

8 See, CPW; 2016-2026 Statewide Strategic Trails Plan; 2017 @ page 3.

9 A complete copy of this article is enclosed with these comments for your reference.

10 See, DOI – BLM; Preliminary Environmental Assessment for the Pallisade Plunge Trail; March 2018 @ pg. 25.

11 See, DOI – BLM; Preliminary Environmental Assessment for the Pallisade Plunge Trail; March 2018 @ pg. 15.

12 See DOI BLM EA at pg. 25.

13 See, DOI BLM EA at pg. 24.

14 See, DOI BLM Preliminary Environmental Assessment for the Palisade Plunge Trail; March 2018 at pg. 25.

15 See, https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/projects/nepa/80546/137873/169617/Palisade_Plunge_Preliminary_EA_News_Release.pdf

16 A complete version of this research is available here – https://www.mbta.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Squamish-EI-Report-April-3-2017.pdf

Continue Reading

TPA elects new Board of Directors

Marking ten years of hard work and success in protecting multiple-use access to trails in the Rocky Mountain Region, the Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) has elected a new board of directors to bring fresh energy to pursuing its mission of preserving and expanding motorcycle trail riding in the Rockies.

Don Riggle, the founder of TPA, remains in place as an uncompensated Director of Operations and board member.  Jason Elliott continues on the board and is now Chairman for a two-year term. Scott Bright, Dennis Larratt, and Ned Suesse join and complete the board, each bringing their passion and experience to push the TPA into a new chapter. In addition, the TPA would like to thank Doug Drussel and Steve Matthiesen for ten years of service and leadership on the board.

The TPA approaches its mission with three essential elements: support of local motorcycle clubs, direct statewide advocacy, and legal action. The TPA vision is to continue this approach, and follow the model of other advocacy organizations by adding a salaried executive director.  “Don Riggle has worked tirelessly for many years without pay to protect the riding we love,” said Suesse. “However, there is only one Don Riggle and at some point, he will take a step back. All of us who love riding need to step forward and share the load,” Ned said.

The primary priority for the TPA, a 501(c) 3 organization, is to continue the work in which it is already involved. Engaging in lawsuits that impact riders statewide, researching and preparing comments and involvement in Forest Plan revisions and Travel Management plans, raising the profile of motorized recreation at both the state and federal levels, and supporting clubs that are working to open new trails and defend old ones across the state. The TPA will also continue to promote the Colorado 600/Trails Awareness Symposium as its marquee event that serves to showcase off-road motorcycling and raise funds for its mission.

Additionally, the board will begin searching for the right person to take over the Executive Director role, and to raise an endowment that will allow TPA to hire that person when found. “When we look at how effective some of the anti-access groups are, we believe we need to learn something from them,” says Bright. “The motorized recreation industry is far bigger than many special interest groups, yet to date, we have relied on volunteers for the bulk of our work. We believe the time has come to change that and support an effective and sustainable organization.”

To learn more about the Colorado TPA, to make a tax-deductible donation, or to see a complete record of its successes and ongoing actions, visit https://www.coloradotpa.org.

Contact: Jason Elliott
info@coloradotpa.org
719-332-8456
P.O. Box 38093
Colorado Springs, CO 80937

Continue Reading